BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 38 of 2014
Sri Biprojit Das, ……………………………………………………….Complainant.
-V/S-
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., O.P No.1.
A 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
New Delhi- 110 004.
2. The Manager, O.P No.2.
SamsungAuthorised Service Centre,
205/1, Bidhan Mansion, Second Floor,
Hospital Road, OppossiteJagannath Travels, Silchar-5.
3. Universal Suppliers,
Janiganj Bazar, Silchar-1. O.P.No.3.
Present: - Sri BishnuDebnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. ChandanaPurkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Sri Rajib Das , Advocate for the complainant.
Smt.Paramita Bhattacharjee, Advocate for the O.P. No.2.
Date of evidence………………. 07-04-2015, 13-05-2015
Date of written argument… 15-06-2015, 25-08-2015
Date of judgment……………… 06-05-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
1. The complainant Sri Biprojit Das brought the allegation against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and its Service Centre at Silchar that he purchased Mobile Handset grand-2 Model No.7102 on 22-04-2014 for Rs.22,600/- (Twenty Two Thousand) only from Universal Suppliers, Janiganj, Silchar but the said set was started malfunctioning during the warrantee period. Accordingly, he approached the Service Centre at Silchar but the service Centre did not provide service. Accordingly, he sent pleader’s notice on 03-07-2014.
2. As the Service Centre did neither repair the handset not the replace the set So, he brought this complaint case with a prayer for following reliefs
(a) The Opp. Parties be directed to replace the mobile set to the complainant or in default pay the cost of the mobile set amounting to Rs.22,600/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
(b) The Opp. Parties be further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony.
(c) The Opp. Parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for disservice.
(d) The complainant be granted all reliefs as the complainant may be found entitled in law and in equity.
(e) For cost of the proceedings.
3. Accordingly, on receiving notice of this District Forum the O.P No.1 and 2 i.e. Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. and the service centre respectively submitted their W/S. The O.P No.3 i.e. Universal Suppliers did not contest the case. In the W/S, the contesting O.Ps stated inter alia that the complainant never visited the service centre for repairing the handset. Of course, he stated that on receiving pleader’s notice it has come to notice the allegation against them. They denied the allegation are stated that the handset was not defective rather feature which the complaint was not enjoying under heading “ENHANCED PERFORMANCE” depend upon the service provider. Of course, the contesting O.Ps in their W/S further stated that the problem regarding “VOICE CONTROL” as stated by the complainant was not informed to the O.Ps prior to the institution of the instant case. They also stated that in the pleader’s notice the said allegation regarding “VOICE CONTROL” and demanding money of Rs.5,000/- were not disclosed. For which the said allegation is concocted and afterthought. Thus, as per contesting O.Ps there is no cause of action for reliefs as stated in the complaint.
4. During hearing, the complainant diposed on oath and exhibited as many as 4 (four) documents including Cash Memo, Warrantee Card and copy of pleader’s notice. The O.P 1 & No.2 also examined himself as D.W. After closing evidence, both the complainant and O.P No.2 submitted written argument.
5. The complainant exhibited Cash Memo vide Ext. 1 to establish the fact that he purchased Samsung Grand-2 Model No.7102 handset for Rs.22,600/- on 22-04-2014 from O.P No.3. He also exhibited Warrantee Card vide Ext.-2. From the above documents, it is crystal clear that Complainant purchased the said handset. The said fact is also admitted by the contesting O.P. But crux point is as whether feature under “ENHANCED PERFORMANCE” are manufacturing defect. The O.Ps plea is that those malfunctioning of feature are not manufacturing defect rather enjoying of those features are dependent on service provider.
6. From the evidence on record and on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, we have been convinced that those features are dependent on the service provider. So, the O.Ps are not in negligence and as such there is no disservice in respect of malfunctioning of features under the heading “ENHANCED PERFORMANCE”
7. However, the complaint brought another allegation which is reproduced below:-
It is pertinent to mentioned here that there is another system in the said Mobile Set i.e, VOICE CONTROL-(i) ‘Answer or regent calls with the voice commends. “Answer” and “Reject” the speaker will turn or when you answer a call with a voice commend, (ii) Alarm- Stop or snooze alarms with the Voice Commends “Stop” and “’Snooze”, (iii) Camera: Take pictures with Voice Commends “Capture”, “Shoot” and “Cheese” and (iv) Music: Control music with the Voice Commends “Next”, “Previous”, “Play”, ’Pause”, Volume up and down, which is also not functioning properly and as the fact of non-functioning of the VOICE CONTROL in the said mobile set was communicated to the O.P No.2 by the complainant, the O.P No.2 asked for payment of Rs.5,000/-(Five Thousand) without giving any reason for that to the complainant and told that without depositing money the mobile set will be repaired.
8. The contesting O.P denied that allegation and in the W/S stated inter-alia that the said allegation was not disclosed in the pleader’s notice so, the said allegation is concocted and afterthought and as such there is no cause of action.
9. It is convincing to us that without any cause of action relief can not be granted. Cause of action arise during the trial is no cause of action for relief to be granted in any litigation. The cause of action must be in existence at the pre litigation stage. If the above fact of allegation stated regarding malfunctioning of VOICE CONTROL of the handset, why the complainant did not bring it to the knowledge of the O.P prior to the institution of this complaint or why in the pleader’s notice this fact is did not disclose. Nothing explained by the complainant in the complaint.
10.It is to be mentioned here that complaint is not to be treated similar to the status of a plaint. So, the complainant can travel beyond the complaint. Thus, he has scope to make explanation in the deposition regarding non-disclosing the above vital fact. I have gone through the deposition but nothing found to be treated as explanation regarding non-disclosing the above allegation
11. Hence, in our considered view there is no cause of action for the instant complaint. Hence, the complainant is not entitled any relief. Accordingly, the case is dismissed without any cost. Supply free certified copy of Judgment to the parties of this litigation. With the above order this case is dismissed without any cost.
12.Given under hand and seal of the District Forum on this the 6th day of may, 2017.
